New Mars Forums

Is it even possible to make SPF 10,000? 

We may find our time is better spent developing mechanical extentions like those found on Robonaut.

Its very much a catch-22 Greg.

My biggest concern is that the untrained voter will look at this plan as say "Hey, thats like Apollo 18" and say what the hell are they spending all this money on something we did (by then) a HALF CENTURY ago. Public interest could disapear even quicker than it did in the 1970's.

Personally I'm wondering just how much of that 12 tons of cargo to the surface is made up of consumable gases. Based on those 4 big tanks I'm going to say quite a bit. After all these years of learning how to and how not to recycle air and water for a couple months at a time on space stations, can't we use the same technology on the moon?

If you reduce the required mass just for survival for a week by using oxygen and water recyclers and carry much less comsumables you either reduce the need for that massive TLI stage (although that tank would be a great start for a base, its criminal to throw it out), or vastly increase the amount or science or construction payload you can carry.

What we need is a more robust "service module" capable of delivering and suppling a CEV from LEO, to the surface, and back to LEO.

You know, I wonder if NASA is allowing all these little quirks to have a little more media attention than they possibly deserve. That way they can milk the existing issues to put themselves in a better position to go to Congress and ask for an alternetive launch method for ISS pieces.

I could be wrong, but weren't we dropping Ice from Shuttles as well? Granted that might not be from the surface of the tank, but you've still got very cold surfaces in close vicinity that will need to be considered.

With the stress of launch that might just break the foam into pieces small enough to fit through the mesh, which depending on the size of the holes in the mesh, might mean just fine particulate, or pieces otherwise too small to cause any damage. But you got to be careful in how much weight you add to the tank, lest you some how alter the dynamics of the STS. This mesh after all, is payload.

I think the solution is not to spend another dime on the ET. After all, the Shuttle is going to be retired, and this won't be an issue with inline SDV, and even with a Shuttle-C, there a lot of things you can to the payload faring that you can't do with the Shuttle.

The solution is to look at the Shuttle itself, along with alternative launch methods, to limit the number of orbiter launches as much as possible. If we do it right, we can do it with 1, and even then not be concerned with reentry.

Sounds a lot like Russian Roulette to me.

I'm glad someone brought this up cause I heard it as well. And I fear you answered your own question. The EPA decided that freon based foam was not environmentally friendly, and probably with a little prodding from the Clinton administration, NASA agreed to switch.

Double posts happen from time to time. Could be a site load error, connection issues, ect. It was probably not intentional.

But without the portopotty, how are crews going to play the age old joke of tipping over the portopotty while a fellow crew member uses the portopotty?

Morale is vital.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/05 … l]Atlantis Status

I think they can fix little tiles like that. Its just a matter of making sure the goo used to do it doesn't interfere with the landing gear door.

Regardless every issue like this reduces the number of shuttle launches we do. That much is clear.

The amount of sweating Griffen does over the next two weeks will weight heavily on what decisions are made over the next few months.

Well, at least when it comes time to colonize, we won't have to worry about stepping on any natives.

Here we go!

Those of us not fortunate enough to have broadband are reduced to TV coverage. Which is none existant. I guess they feel they got burned last time.

NASA TV is great though.